Once again, your blind partisanship shows. First you comment on WMD. Then, you link to the article on the understimation of terror attacks.

Your own agenda disqualifies your argument. You will use anything...and I mean anything...to discredit the Bush adminsitration and make it look bad. From a one day report on the state of the stock markets, to a jobless claims number that was actually GOOD...you'll use it all.

" We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons but we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) program," Kay was reported saying in the interview conducted yesterday. "

-----------------------------------------------------------

Uh huh.

If it was gone before the war why did we have the war?

As for the economy I've said it looks better it just doesn't have the basics for staying better. That's the part you were supposed to see but of course your love for our fearless leader has you blinded again.

By the way. How many one day reports have I shown you in the last 2 years?

Excuse me, but what does that show? If Saddam had a program, he was in violation of UN resolutions. Why is a large stockpile required? Even ONE chemical warhead is a threat to the region. We've found chemicals. We've found banned missles with ranges exceeding permissable limits. We've even found chemical shells...before the war. Explain the problem.

None of it matters anyway. The same people screaming about Bush's concocted war are the ones who are ON RECORD saying that Saddam was a threat and sought chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Oh but wait...I forgot: Clinton didn't invade, so that justifies their switch of opinion. Right. got it now.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is the bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our country." Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation...and now he is calculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23, 2003

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D- WV), Oct. 3, 2002

There is no defense for these statements, jimmac. If Bush lied, so did they. If Bush was incompetent, so were they. Blame Bush and his team if you'd like...but you better damn well lay the blame evenly.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Originally posted by SDW2001Excuse me, but what does that show? If Saddam had a program, he was in violation of UN resolutions. Why is a large stockpile required? Even ONE chemical warhead is a threat to the region. We've found chemicals. We've found banned missles with ranges exceeding permissable limits. We've even found chemical shells...before the war. Explain the problem.

None of it matters anyway. The same people screaming about Bush's concocted war are the ones who are ON RECORD saying that Saddam was a threat and sought chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Oh but wait...I forgot: Clinton didn't invade, so that justifies their switch of opinion. Right. got it now.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is the bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our country." Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation...and now he is calculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23, 2003

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D- WV), Oct. 3, 2002

There is no defense for these statements, jimmac. If Bush lied, so did they. If Bush was incompetent, so were they. Blame Bush and his team if you'd like...but you better damn well lay the blame evenly.

You see to have forgotten something very basic here. Before the war we gave Saddam an ultimatum to show he had no weapons otherwise we'd attack.

The inspectors came back saying there were no WOMD. Saddam said he had none ( and this would tend to confirm this ).

Bush said he had proof that Saddam was a threat and had WOMD.

When we got there we looked but no WOMD.

Saddam was supposed to be this big threat to the U.S.

But this shows clearly he wasn't.

Do you see how this isn't adding up?

So if we went to war with Iraq because he currently had WOMD where are they?

Why did we have this war????????????

Right now I don't give a rip what Kerry said back then. We're talking about Bush here. He was in charge.

Where are the WOMD??????

Why did we have this war?????

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Originally posted by jimmacYou see to have forgotten something very basic here. Before the war we gave Saddam an ultimatum to show he had no weapons otherwise we'd attack.

The inspectors came back saying there were no WOMD. Saddam said he had none ( and this would tend to confirm this ).

Bush said he had proof that Saddam was a threat and had WOMD.

When we got there we looked but no WOMD.

Saddam was supposed to be this big threat to the U.S.

But this shows clearly he wasn't.

Do you see how this isn't adding up?

So if we went to war with Iraq because he currently had WOMD where are they?

Why did we have this war????????????

Right now I don't give a rip what Kerry said back then. We're talking about Bush here. He was in charge.

Where are the WOMD??????

Why did we have this war?????

1. The inspectors did NOT say that Iraq had no WMD. That's disingenuous.

2. Iraq failed to comply with UN resolution 1441 and 16 others, including the resolution that caused a cease fire in the 1991 Gulf War.

3. You MUST care about what people like Kerry and others said. They are now saying Bush lied about the same claims THEY THEMSELVES made! you don't care about Kerry's statements? What the fuck? He's running for President and talking about rushing to war! Yet, it was KERRY, KENNEDY and even CLINTON that made the EXACT same arguments Bush did.

If Bush is a liar or is incompetent, so are all the above people and more. Refute that or concede the point.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Originally posted by SDW20011. The inspectors did NOT say that Iraq had no WMD. That's disingenuous.

2. Iraq failed to comply with UN resolution 1441 and 16 others, including the resolution that caused a cease fire in the 1991 Gulf War.

3. You MUST care about what people like Kerry and others said. They are now saying Bush lied about the same claims THEY THEMSELVES made! you don't care about Kerry's statements? What the fuck? He's running for President and talking about rushing to war! Yet, it was KERRY, KENNEDY and even CLINTON that made the EXACT same arguments Bush did.

If Bush is a liar or is incompetent, so are all the above people and more. Refute that or concede the point.

Nope, Bush was President: he was the man with the inside track to the information . . . and he and his sources chose what to use to convince everybody else. Some people were duped, some people still are.

And the inspectors wanted to continue, but our 'proof' was supposed to show what they didn't see . . . though they did actually see, except we didn't let them say.

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes--Franklin Miller.

Originally posted by SDW20011. The inspectors did NOT say that Iraq had no WMD. That's disingenuous.

2. Iraq failed to comply with UN resolution 1441 and 16 others, including the resolution that caused a cease fire in the 1991 Gulf War.

3. You MUST care about what people like Kerry and others said. They are now saying Bush lied about the same claims THEY THEMSELVES made! you don't care about Kerry's statements? What the fuck? He's running for President and talking about rushing to war! Yet, it was KERRY, KENNEDY and even CLINTON that made the EXACT same arguments Bush did.

If Bush is a liar or is incompetent, so are all the above people and more. Refute that or concede the point.

Originally posted by SDW2001
1. The inspectors did NOT say that Iraq had no WMD. That's disingenuous.

No, they were pulled out of Iraq before they had the chance to find out that Iraq had no WMD. The inspections were a farce: the US was going to war, WMD or no WMD.

Quote:

2. Iraq failed to comply with UN resolution 1441 and 16 others, including the resolution that caused a cease fire in the 1991 Gulf War.

Resolution 1441: the "justification" (!) given to Bush by the U.N., an organization subsequently described as irrelevant by the Bush Administration. WTF?

Quote:

3. You MUST care about what people like Kerry and others said. They are now saying Bush lied about the same claims THEY THEMSELVES made! you don't care about Kerry's statements? What the fuck? He's running for President and talking about rushing to war! Yet, it was KERRY, KENNEDY and even CLINTON that made the EXACT same arguments Bush did.

If Bush is a liar or is incompetent, so are all the above people and more. Refute that or concede the point.

I wonder how much (or, more appropriately, LITTLE research was done by all those members of the House and Senate who voted for invasion, re. Saddam's armaments, and potential threat? To me, it looks like virtually ZERO. Numerous and detailed facts about the WMD, ot lack thereof, which have now been endorsed by Kay etc had been freely available on tables at virtually every anti-war protest and rally from October 2002 onwards. The same claims were cited in testimony by numerous senior military and intelligence officials in the Robert Greenwald documentary UNCOVERED. Which brings me to two logical possibilities:

(a) Bush did know. He was abundantly aware of the correct intelligence, but because publication and acknowledgement would have shot down the stated justification for war, WMD, he decided to lie about it, or

(b) Bush did not know. After all, he has admitted that he doesn't read the news, and his knowledge of world affairs comes from his advisers. What a dangerous notion, that the man with his finger on the 'nuclear button" is so clueless.

But it is far more likely that he knew, and lied.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow

Originally posted by sammi joNo, they were pulled out of Iraq before they had the chance to find out that Iraq had no WMD. The inspections were a farce: the US was going to war, WMD or no WMD.

Resolution 1441: the "justification" (!) given to Bush by the U.N., an organization subsequently described as irrelevant by the Bush Administration. WTF?

I wonder how much (or, more appropriately, LITTLE research was done by all those members of the House and Senate who voted for invasion, re. Saddam's armaments, and potential threat? To me, it looks like virtually ZERO. Numerous and detailed facts about the WMD, ot lack thereof, which have now been endorsed by Kay etc had been freely available on tables at virtually every anti-war protest and rally from October 2002 onwards. The same claims were cited in testimony by numerous senior military and intelligence officials in the Robert Greenwald documentary UNCOVERED. Which brings me to two logical possibilities:

(a) Bush did know. He was abundantly aware of the correct intelligence, but because publication and acknowledgement would have shot down the stated justification for war, WMD, he decided to lie about it, or

(b) Bush did not know. After all, he has admitted that he doesn't read the news, and his knowledge of world affairs comes from his advisers. What a dangerous notion, that the man with his finger on the 'nuclear button" is so clueless.

But it is far more likely that he knew, and lied.

That's what I've always said.

On the one hand he knew the intel was wrong or made up and is a liar.

Or he didn't know the intel was wrong, dosen't have a good intellegece network set up, bad advisors ( even though I seem to remember some of them saying it was wrong ), which makes him ineffective and incompetent and he shouldn't be in office.

Take your pick.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

Maybe, but considering what most of them had access to,* what their jobs are and the inherent concerns of their positions, they likely just went along with the crowd. Anti-war folks have long criticized high profile dems for not challenging the claims sufficiently, so jumping on the bandwagon at this point really isn't going to have the effect you intend.

Quote:

If Bush was incompetent, so were they.

Nope, different jobs, different faults. Bush is incompetent, but it really wouldn't be as much of a problem if he had a competent administration. Afterall, those are the people making policy and who controlled information on Iraq during the build-up.

You know, the unfortunate thing with regurgitating the little fwd emails is that sources aren't provided and it indicates a loose grasp of the subject matter (like citing a nigerian scam email during a discussion of international banking). In the case of out-of-context quotes, it deceptively isolates sound-bytes from the context and leaves the reader in the dark about the broader position. End result: preaching to the choir and mistakenly thinking it's clever.

*Not to mention, of course, that we know senators were given bad info regarding Iraqi capabilities. Senators and congressmen are consumers of information.

You guys are a joke. Clinton makes the argument and it's accepted. Bush makes the very same argument and it's not. There is no way you can justify this discrepancy with anything other than blatant intellectual dishonesty.
Kerry made the same kind of statements BEFORE Bush took office. So did other leaders in the Democratic party.

How do you reconicle this?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Originally posted by giantMaybe, but considering what most of them had access to,* what their jobs are and the inherent concerns of their positions, they likely just went along with the crowd. Anti-war folks have long criticized high profile dems for not challenging the claims sufficiently, so jumping on the bandwagon at this point really isn't going to have the effect you intend.

Nope, different jobs, different faults. Bush is incompetent, but it really wouldn't be as much of a problem if he had a competent administration. Afterall, those are the people making policy and who controlled information on Iraq during the build-up.

You know, the unfortunate thing with regurgitating the little fwd emails is that sources aren't provided and it indicates a loose grasp of the subject matter (like citing a nigerian scam email during a discussion of international banking). In the case of out-of-context quotes, it deceptively isolates sound-bytes from the context and leaves the reader in the dark about the broader position. End result: preaching to the choir and mistakenly thinking it's clever.

*Not to mention, of course, that we know senators were given bad info regarding Iraqi capabilities. Senators and congressmen are consumers of information.

Listen carefully: Many of these statements and others were made BEFORE the Bush administration took office. So if they got bad information then, it's the fault of those proviing it. But for Bush, well....he lied! Because you see...we proved that Saddam had no WMD wince Bush took office. It was all a lie. I see now.

And I assure you...these quotes are accurate. Your Nigerian banking scam example is absurd. If you can refute the quotes or show they're out of context, then go ahead. You can't blame context and sourcing for every quote you don't like.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Originally posted by giant
On the raw intelligence side, the major two developments were the UNMOVIC inspections and the influx of false INC defector reports.

On the product side, we had the NIE, which stands in stark contrast to all previous assessments, and, most importantly, the Office of Special Plans. OSP was the primary source for the intelligence products that painted an image of a WMD armed Iraq collaborating with al-qaeda.

OSP was also a direct creation of the Bush administration. As such, most intelligence products were indeed created by the Bush administration. [Those that were not direct creations of DoD were strongly influenced, and we now know the exact mechanisms by which that happened.]

All of the other people cited in the spam you posted are also consumers of intelligence, just like every other citizen. If you still are unaware of how intelligence was mishandled under the current admin, it's not to late to start learning.

Quote:

If you can refute the quotes or show they're out of context, then go ahead.

Um ... without a citation there's no easy way to find the source to note the context. The fact that drones spam the internet and overload google with this junk makes it especially difficult.

However, the Byrd and Kennedy quotes (don't know about the others) are both from speeches condemning the Bush admin's attempts to fabricate a case for war. Presented above they appear to be endorsements when they absolutely were not. For example, also from the Kennedy speech: "The administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, preemptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary."

Originally posted by SDW2001Listen carefully: Many of these statements and others were made BEFORE the Bush administration took office. So if they got bad information then, it's the fault of those proviing it. But for Bush, well....he lied! Because you see...we proved that Saddam had no WMD wince Bush took office. It was all a lie. I see now.

And I assure you...these quotes are accurate. Your Nigerian banking scam example is absurd. If you can refute the quotes or show they're out of context, then go ahead. You can't blame context and sourcing for every quote you don't like.

SDW,

The only thing that matters here really is did SH have WOMD shortly ( months ) before the war. Going back to 1998 ( the last century )isn't relevant in this particular matter. If he did that would be a different matter. Maybe if the Bush Administration had shared this " secret " evidence with these others at the time you might have a point. However SH had no WOMD at the time that's clear. There was no reason for this war.

Bush seems to like playing his cards close to his chest and bluffing. They were so sure that there was WOMD. Just like they still contend that there was a connection between 911 and Saddam. Which it's clear now there wasn't.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

When they published their "Case Closed" cover story three weeks ago on the relationship between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaida, the editors of the Weekly Standard aimed to set off a bomb. The article was centered on a sizable leaka gusher, reallyof classified intelligence, 50 raw reports that had been strung together in the Pentagon to demonstrate the "operational relationship" between Osama Bin Laden's organization and Iraq. The target was the consensus among journalists and experts that there were no substantive ties between Baghdad and al-Qaida. If the article achieved its goal, it would help shore up the rickety argument that Baathist Iraq had posed a real national security threat to the United States.

Despite Jack Shafer's cri de coeur for some real reporting on the matter, the bomb sputtered. Some big publications took a passing look at material from the leaked annex to a letter from Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligencethe document in which the 50 reports are summarizedbut mostly for the sake of knocking it down, either explicitly or backhandedly. The piece has elicited one genuinely interesting column from the Washington Post's David Ignatius, who revealed that the United States and Britain had a highly placed informant in Iraqi intelligence "who told them before the war that in the late 1990s, Saddam Hussein had indeed considered such an operational relationship with bin Ladenand then decided against it."

For the most part, though, it seems the few beat reporters who cover the intelligence community called their sources and were told there was nothing new herethat the article was not, as author Stephen F. Hayes claimed, the fatal reproof to "critics of the Bush Administration [who] have complained that Iraq-al Qaeda connections are a fantasy, trumped up by the warmongers at the White House to fit their preconceived notions about international terror."

Continue Article

As subsequent editorials show, this has clearly infuriated the Weekly Standard crowd, who were also hoping to flush administration foxes from the hedges and force them finally to back up the allegations they have made about Saddam and Bin Laden. As someone who co-wrote a book, The Age of Sacred Terror, that argued there was no substantive relationship between al-Qaida and Iraqa conclusion based on a review of relevant intelligence from when I worked on counterterrorism at the National Security Council in the late 1990sas well as a series of op-eds in the New York Times and elsewhere saying the same thing, I guess I should be happy that the Hayes piece stirred the pot so little.

Instead, I'm as frustrated as the Standard-bearers.

Why? First, the Feith memo does not prove what it sets out to, and a fuller airing of the issues would bring clarity to a topic that desperately needs it. Second, and more important, the document lends substance to the frequently voiced criticism that some in the Bush administration have misused intelligence to advance their policy goals.

Hayes contends that Feith's document demonstrates that the relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq "involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaedaperhaps even for Mohamed Atta." Yet in any serious intelligence review, much of the material presented would quickly be discarded. For example, one report claims Bin Laden visited Baghdad to meet with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz in 1998, but this is extremely unlikely to be true given how many intelligence services were tracking both individuals' movements. Countless intelligence and press accounts of Bin Laden's travels have appeared over the years while the man himself remained only where he was safe: Afghanistan. Hence, another report that has him traveling to Qatar in 1996 is almost as unlikely.

There are also glaring mistakes in the analytic material, though whether the errors were originally Feith's or Hayes' is not clear. What is referred to as Bin Laden's "fatwa on the plight of Iraq" was in fact the famous "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," which spoke of the suffering of Iraqis but only as proof of a U.S.-led global campaign to destroy Islam. If anything, the sense of grievance over events, including the U.S. troop presence, on the Arabian peninsula is far greater. Moreover, some of the material presented in the article insinuates that Iraq staged the Khobar Towers bombing, when two administrations have laid the blame at Iran's door.

The Feith document does not recount many details of an operational relationship, nor does it illustrate a tie that was ongoing, cooperative, and operational. At best, it records expressions of various individuals' wish for a better relationship between the two sidesa desire that does not appear to have been consummated. Meetings between Iraqi officials and al-Qaida members began in the early 1990s, and there are reports that Iraq wanted to "establish links to al Qaeda." In 1993, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq." But in 1998, the Iraqis still "seek closer ties," and the sides are still "looking for a way to maintain contacts."

There was a lot of seeking and wanting going on, and perhaps there were even meetings. But the fact that meetings occurred has never been the issueat least not among serious criticsnor has it been disputed that some jihadists lived in or traveled through Iraq. (There were more meetings with Iranian authorities, as well as more terrorists living in or transiting Iran, but that seems to interest neither Feith nor Hayes.) What is disputed is that the meetings went anywhere. It would not be surprising to find out that the two sides had a de facto cease-fire, as has been alleged. But we're still waiting to see real cooperation in the form of transfers of weapons and other materiel, know-how, or funds; the provision of safe haven on a significant scale; or the use of Iraqi diplomatic facilities by al-Qaida terrorists. The Feith memo mentions a few instances of possible Iraqi assistance to al-Qaida on bomb-building and weapons supply to affiliated groups, but nothing like the kind of evidence that, in Hayes' words, "is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources."

What does all this say about how Feith and his underlings use intelligence? Hayes says, correctly, that the Feith memo "just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections." The large sampling provided in his article, he believes, destroys critics' arguments "that links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden have been routinely 'exaggerated' for political purposes; that hawks 'cherry-picked' bits of intelligence and tendentiously presented these to the American public."

What Hayes does not seem to recognize is that many of the treasures he imagines hidden in the existing CIA files may be dross or worse and, if presented, they would undermine the " 'Cliff's notes' version of the relationship" that he says is provided by the Feith memo. Of course there are more reports. When your intelligence service relays, as it should, everything short of sightings of Bin Laden on the moon, 50 reports of varying quality do not amount to much. The remaining material, many who are familiar with it believe, does not confirm the Hayes-Feith version but points in the other direction.

Not surprisingly, none of the reports in the Feith memo mention the aversion that the Baathist and jihadists felt for one another. Similarly, there is no evidence of the contradictory nature of the intelligence. I would bet, for example, that there are plenty of reports putting Bin Laden in Afghanistan and perhaps a half a dozen other places in January 1998, at exactly the time he was supposed to be in Baghdadand that would be only the most blatant kind of inconsistency. Attributing a report to a "contact with good access" does not mean the contact's account is true. Proving a report correct, or sufficiently corroborated to be considered plausible, requires a lot more work. Putting all the disparate pieces together and trying to construct a coherent pictureyes, connecting the dotsis harder still, requiring a mastery of all the material. Of course, raw intelligence has its value, especially if you are worried about an imminent attack, but there is a reason why the intelligence community spends so much time and energy putting out "finished product," the reports that evaluate a significant body of information to get the whole picture right. Those are the reports that policy-makers are supposed to rely on in crafting a strategy.

One thing intelligence analysts do as they evaluate a body of information is keep in mind the context. This is worth attempting in the case of the Feith memo, too, because while much of the material may be new to the public, most of it has been bouncing around the government since well before the invasion of Iraq. That means it has been scrubbed numerous times by analysts and senior officials eager to use it as they made the case for invading Iraq.

After these reviews, it is clear, very little has been found that was solid enough to present in public. Compare the Feith memo with Colin Powell's U.N. speech, which was preceded by the most thorough evaluation of the intelligence ever conducted by the Bush administration. Remarkably little on the ties between al-Qaida and Iraq made it into that speech. Or compare the memo with the recent remarks of Vice President Dick Cheney, who has all but stopped listing possible al-Qaida-Iraq connections and has given up suggesting that Mohammed Atta met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official since saying it on Meet the Press in September. (After that appearance, the Washington Post noted that he was arguing a point the FBI and CIA didn't believe was true.) If top officials had any confidence in these wares, they would still be out hawking them. Why the Feith memo is being sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee is also therefore baffling.

It should be clear now why the Feith document needs a lot more attention: The memo is, Hayes' declarations to the contrary, cherry-pickingthe selective use of intelligence. It lends credence to Seymour Hersh's reporting in The New Yorker about political appointees ignoring career analysts and dredging out whatever suits them. This is perilous business. Making a judgment about Iraq-al-Qaida ties on the basis of the sections presented by Hayes would be like accepting a high-school biology student's reading of a CAT scan.

The administration's use of intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction became a hot issue primarily because of the failure to find any such weapons in Iraq and Joe Wilson's revelations about the non-export of uranium from Niger to Iraq. Strangely, however, there has been little inquiry into the Iraq-al-Qaida relationship. The press has had a difficult time taking this issue any further since so few reporters have good sources in the intelligence community. In Congress, an effort to push further into the issue in the Senate Intelligence Committee has been stymied by the Republican majority's refusal to discuss how the political leadership used the intelligence it was provided with. That is a recipe for putting the blame for any Iraq-related blunders on the intelligence community, not those in the Pentagon or White House who may have misread or ignored the intelligence they were given.

Americans were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was significantly more dangerous than any of the other two dozen or so countries that currently possess them because Saddam might on any given day give such weapons to terrorists. The danger was urgent, we were told, because the Baghdad regime had a relationship with al-Qaida. Given the costs the nation has incurred in Iraq, a conscientious review of the issue would seem to be a good investment in democratic accountability. Since neoconservatives are certain they are right about the Saddam-Bin Laden relationship, maybe they'll join Senate Democrats in demanding a fuller airing.

Daniel Benjamin, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff. He is the co-author of The Age of Sacred Terror.

I'm gonna have to step up and give props to SDW2001 for actually presenting a cogent point of view. Having read many of his(?) uh... less cogent, partisan posts, I'm going to have to say he's made his point well. There are idiots playing for both teams here, people.

Having said that, and moving beyond SDW's excellent point, I think we are overlooking the fact that Bush's reasons for invading and occupying Iraq (or, uh, liberating...) were a moving target. Bush gave an invalid, flawed reason, the American general populace slowly woke up to the fact that it was fabricated, and Bush would then give another invalid reason, etc, until finally he more or less said fuckit, and invaded anyway.

The sad part of this campaign for war is that advertising works... especially on the ignorant. Repeat something enough times and people will believe it. I don't think I fully believed/appreciated this mantra until after 9/11. What's the word... conditioning? Stupidity? How f*cking scary is that? It's something that sinks in when reading the partisan posts of both sides posting here at AI and elsewhere, especially the extreme ones (and you know who you are). How much of what you think is actually your thoughts, your point of view, your arguments, and how much of it is the point of view of the extremist crap you read every day? Someone in another thread (it may have been SDW, come to think of it...?) linked to a bunch of Moore-hater websites... sites with no substance, no content, just catchy anti-Moore phrases, that instead of having actual on-site 'content', link to other hate-filled insubstantial sites with obvious partisan... issues. Really mainstream sites we all frequent every day like... CNS News? WTF is Cyber News Service? And more importantly, who the fuck actually considers it a source of news, and bothers to read it?

A steady diet of this shit that passes for journalism (whether it be indymedia.org or cnsnews.com or any other similar polar extreme) is unhealthy for the mind, period. It's unbalanced, as are the people who write it. If all you do is steep yourself in your partisan back-patting, we're-right-they're-wrong rhetoric, guess what... you're a moron! You can't think for yourself. You're conditioned, just like the millions of idiots who still think Iraq has ties to Al Quaeda, is harboring a huge stash of nukes underground. Whatever happened to critical thought? Listening to both sides, and coming to your own, informed conclusions?

It's sad to see Appleoutsider be a flame-war between cultural stereotypes, with their stereotypical, predictable, fed-to-them points of view. It's sad to see Bush/Liberal apologists overlooking the glaring flaws in their own policies and doctrines and defending them to the death. It's sad to see people can't find any valid ideas and interesting theses in Moore flicks like Bowling For Columbine because he edits two speeches together, so he's a liar and fat stupid anti-American. An awful lot of you can't see the forest for the endless, meaningless rhetoric that surrounds the forest.

They threw everything at the wall to see what would stick, moving from one argument to the next when they didn't play well. And when it's all over, no one can say "hey, that wasn't what you said!" because they actually tried a little bit of everything.

Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.

Originally posted by NaplesXYes. This is the same Taliban that married AQ and is now perpetrating terrorist tactics inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is also the same Taliban that is being hunted by the US and it's allies.

okidoki, just found it kinda ironic how Pakistan suddenly turned into a good ally of the US in the holy WOT... You don't find that slightly problematic?

Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"

1. The ties have not been proven false.
2. We've found chemicals and warheads. No stockpiles...agreed.
3. Weak? Then why was it so important to win UN approval to invade? Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

1. The ties have not been proven false.
2. We've found chemicals and warheads. No stockpiles...agreed.
3. Weak? Then why was it so important to win UN approval to invade? Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not?

1. There are no ties.
2. We needed to find stockpiles to make the excuse for this war viable.
3. We need to pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks unless we're in imimnent danger. Which it's clear now we weren't.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

The only thing that matters here really is did SH have WOMD shortly ( months ) before the war. Going back to 1998 ( the last century )isn't relevant in this particular matter. If he did that would be a different matter. Maybe if the Bush Administration had shared this " secret " evidence with these others at the time you might have a point. However SH had no WOMD at the time that's clear. There was no reason for this war.

Bush seems to like playing his cards close to his chest and bluffing. They were so sure that there was WOMD. Just like they still contend that there was a connection between 911 and Saddam. Which it's clear now there wasn't.

You're a riot. "The last century"!!! Well, excuse me!

First, while we have not found stockpiles of WMD, we have found chemicals and nerve agents...and the warhead that they could be delivered in. None of this was disclosed as it was required to be. We've also found evidence tht Iraq was trying to buy missle technology from North Korea. Hmmm...missles plus warheads plus chemicals=WMD threat, if you ask me.

There was no reason for this war? Bullshit. There was every reason. Violation of 17 UN resolutions. Firing on our aircraft. Genocide. Open hostility towards the US. A US public law calling for regime change. No...no reason at all.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

This aspect of 9-11 is interesting; the wiring from Pakistan (ISI) of a large sum, $100,000+ to the man who went by the name "Mohamed Atta", the alleged leader of the hijack teams.

Quote:

We also looked at the links between the I.S.I, Pakistan, Mohamed Atta, and top U.S. government officials. Why was head of Pakistan's I.S.I., Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, the "money man behind 9-11," who had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta meeting with top U.S. officials from September 4th- the 13th? When we marched on our Senators demanding an investigation of 9-11, this was one of the questions we raised, only to have Bush and Cheney ask to have the Inquiry limited and overseen by the CI,A and the very men who breakfasted with Lt. Gen. Mahoud Ahmad, Pakistani's I.S.I. chief, on the morning of September 11th (Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham- headed the House/Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee which conducted the official Inquiry into 9-11)..... etc etc etc

extremely suspect stuff...and I bet that pathetic fiasco, AKA the 9-11 "inquiry" (yeah, right, as if) disallowed the ISI material from being discussed. They even refused to allow evidence from the firefighters, the people who were closest to the disaster from giving evidence....the guys who went up to the impact floors on both towers of the WTC on 9-11 to report that the fires were virtually out.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow